Do you pick a lot of winners, but still go home with less money than you went to the dog track with? That’s much more common than you might think. A lot of people can pick winners and still lose bets.
Maybe you’ve noticed how often favorites come in at the greyhound track. The crowd is actually pretty good at picking dogs who have a good chance of winning. However, if you bet favorites in every race, you won’t make money. Neither does the crowd.
It sounds crazy, doesn’t it, that you can pick winners and lose. Well, even more unbelievably, you can win without picking winners. I do it all the time.
Okay, so I’m kind of playing with words here, but the concept is real. I don’t handicap to pick a winner in each race. My method of picking contenders starts by eliminating dogs who don’t measure up to the factors I use to handicap greyhound races.
Rather than looking for dogs I think can win, I look for dogs that look like they’re not capable of winning. It’s exactly the opposite approach from how most people pick dogs. It’s not until I’ve narrowed it down to three or four dogs that I consider betting on a race.
When I bet, I have no idea which of those four dogs will win. I may favor one or two dogs over the others, but because I bet quiniela boxes, it doesn’t matter to me which dog wins.
As long as two of my dogs are the quiniela – the first and second dogs – I cash my ticket. The payoff may be different, depending on which dog was at what odds. Of course, it’s best if the dog at the longest odds is first.
However, which of them wins is of less consideration for me than the fact that TWO of my dogs came in. This is why I can pick three dogs that don’t win and still cash my ticket. If I were to play Win bets, I’d be out of luck unless the dog I picked to win came in first.
This is why, for my money, the quiniela box with 3 or 4 dogs is the best bet at the dog track.